[scripter]

And then there's that pesky context. The definition I posted was of perversion (i.e. behavior), not perverts (people), and he ignores how former homosexuals describe the lifestyle.

It appears his posting integrity is similar to that of Dan Ra^ther.

[little jeremiah]

Context? Who needs steenking context?

In the universe of moral relativity, nothing really matters or has any real validity. Except what "they" say. It's really a way of saying "I am God and what I say goes".

[Ernie.cal]

The definition I posted was of perversion (i.e. behavior), not perverts (people), and he ignores how former homosexuals describe the lifestyle.

"Perversion" doesn't exist in a vacuum. The PERSON engages in the BEHAVIOR. It is the PERSON that upsets you---because he or she engages in the behavior.

This is another example of your desire to categorize entire groups of strangers, about whom you know nothing whatsoever. Most Americans believe in making judgments about INDIVIDUALS. We assign blame or guilt or make moral judgments about INDIVIDUALS whom we come to know as HUMAN BEINGS---not perjorative labels.

The content of one's character, one's moral and religious beliefs, one's values, one's political ideas and objectives --- these are all things that must be determined on an INDIVIDUAL basis --- not by a mindless group label or caricature.

If I want to know who "Scripter" is --- I must sit down and talk to Scripter. I can't know what is in Scripter's heart, mind, and soul simply by consulting a label or opening a dictionary.

By contrast, apparently you think individual judgments are inappropriate. It is easier (and more productive) to characterize an entire class of total strangers as depraved, sexual deviants who engage in and celebrate perversion. That exhausts every possible option you need to consider about those persons.

Shame on you!